are you saying the NFL and players Union have agreed to a mediator or are you suggesting they do. Either way I'm in complete agreement, when 2 sides are so far apart that a mediator can find common ground and at least bring them closer

BBReigns would never agree to mediation with the likes of Whodewhodats and Underarms and the other nefarious non-Boston fan posters of the world. He needs a daily fixin' of troll beatdowns to function, I'm convinced of it.

Oh, you meant the NFL and the players. Well, that's great! Mediation is a big step.

I think bringing in an arbitrator would be even better. At the very least an arbitrator would put pressure on the owners to open the books so the talks could move on with facts instead of bad-faith and acrimony.

The mediator is a good step, as it appears the NFL is looking for blood, and asking for incredibly steep demands and giving nothing in return. A mediator will be able to frame that, and likely force the owners to drop some of their demands, and listen to some counter offers from the NFLPA to get the ball rolling.

Z ~ how are you? hope all is well..... This a good step but IMHO I don't believe this resolve anything, but it will lead to the arbitrator that will make things happen and make the decisions that need to be made. 18 games? profit sharing? rookie cap? there is alot on the table.

Z ~ how are you? hope all is well..... This a good step but IMHO I don't believe this resolve anything, but it will lead to the arbitrator that will make things happen and make the decisions that need to be made. 18 games? profit sharing? rookie cap? there is alot on the table.Posted by harleyroadking11

All joking aside it shows good faith that both parties wish to make a deal. If NFL owners have learned anything then they will get a CBA done. They are now on top of all sports including baseball, to squander this season would be foolish.From all I have read there are only 2 main situations, the 18 game season and the cap on rookies.I think all agree a rookie cap needs to get done, the 18 game season in my opinion is just a bargin chip for the owners to get the cap pressed into place.Besides, they can sell pictures of Brett Farve's weeweee on ebay to make up ithe difference.

Personally, if the players had any kind of brains they would settle on a 60/40 split thats better than any other profession could ever dream of getting from there company. I've been an NFL fan since i was born, but seeing the greed coming from the players and the owners if they don't come to an agreement and football is off the table, i'll do what I did to baseball, stop watching and caring. Same as i did with baseball back in 94-95. Havn't gone to a game, or watched one on TV nor cared about the Sox since then.

Sorry Stommmper, the Rookie salary cap and the 18 game season are secondary issues. If they were the only issues then a deal would probably get done tomorrow. The real issue is that the owners want the players to give back 1 billion dollars in revenue. Quick overview: the NFL earns $9 billion. 1 billions goes to the owners straight off the top. That money is supposedly used for operating expenses; stadium upkeep, litigation, etc... The remaining 8 billion is split 60 / 40, players getting 60%, owners getting the other 40%. That means the players get 4.8 billion while the owners get 3.2 billion plus the 1 billion off the top, or 4.2 billion. Basically, the owners want 2 billion of the top for operating expenses.

the two sides have moved to this step. The Mediator will get the two sides talking again, but this is not binding arbitration.Posted by harleyroadking11

"are you saying the NFL and players Union have agreed to a mediator or are you suggesting they do. Either way I'm in complete agreement, when 2 sides are so far apart that a mediator can find common ground and at least bring them closer."

Is this what we're talking about here...thank god. I thought harley was describing any of the times me and my ex-girlfriend were plannin on gettin in the sack together...

Sorry Stommmper, the Rookie salary cap and the 18 game season are secondary issues. If they were the only issues then a deal would probably get done tomorrow. The real issue is that the owners want the players to give back 1 billion dollars in revenue. Quick overview: the NFL earns $9 billion. 1 billions goes to the owners straight off the top. That money is supposedly used for operating expenses; stadium upkeep, litigation, etc... The remaining 8 billion is split 60 / 40, players getting 60%, owners getting the other 40%. That means the players get 4.8 billion while the owners get 3.2 billion plus the 1 billion off the top, or 4.2 billion. Basically, the owners want 2 billion of the top for operating expenses. Posted by ZachRudy

The owners want 2 billion off the top, AND a 50/50 split, AND two extra games of work for it.

That ends up with 3.5 billion for the players and 5.5 billion for the owners.

It is outrageous -- especially considering the healty financials of the league.

As far 60/40 being lucrative, the owners in this business more than any other are just glorified middle men, skimming off the top. Nearly 100% of the revenue is generated from the players, as they don't have any real raw materials they work on that represents an ongoing cost.

If you are, for instance, building something like a car or a house, part of the revenue (supposedly) comes from the resale of the steel or lumber that someone pourchase for you to work on, therefore there is a second part of the equation. For the most part, the owners really only paid for the rights to a name and logo,like "Texans" or "Chargers."

They revenue can be split that way because it is incredibly difficult for the owners to explain what part they have generated, especially when an ostensibly ownerless or "state owned" team like the Packers keeps winning and making money without the added "benefit" of someone cashing in on the rights to their logo.

In Response to Re: Mediation : Unless you are self employed, I think you mean profits. All companies split profits 100-0. It's the secret to capital increase. Money for nothing. Well, money for work someone else has done usually.Posted by zbellino

Many companies do split profits with their employees. I can think of several people I know who receive profit sharing bonuses. I myself was given stock by my last company. Anytime a profit distribution went out I got something. It is true that most do not though. When people discuss the NFL, they seem to be speaking some weird business language. Real profits are determined after paying for labor, not before. The NFL is not arguing over profit sharing, they are arguing over revenue sharing. The difference is not trivial. The owners have every right to say the $1B set aside for operating costs is inadequate. Considering the costs of things nowadays, it's not a great leap to imagine the NFL's operating costs exceeding $1B.

I will favor the entrepreneurs over the players. The players come and go quite frequently. The owners are the ones with the business smarts to bring us the NFL. The owners are the ones who made the NFL what it is, and not a failure like the USFL and other attempts. The players risk their bodies, but no more than many many other professions that pay much less. The owners are the brains behind the NFL. They risked their own significant wealth to make it what it is. It is their business decisions that made it a success. They have far more vested into the NFL than any player that has ever taken the field. I think a 50/50 revenue split with an adjusted operating expense amount is hardly a raw deal. They WILL be compensated for the extra games because if the league makes more money, that 50% becomes larger. Perhaps they just need to adjust the salary of players already under contract a bit. I'll be curious to hear what your take is should you ever start a successful business yourself.

All that said, I want to see some football next season. I hope mediation helps that. Whatever it takes. No side is really going to be suffering no matter what the deal ends up being.

In Response to Re: Mediation : Unless you are self employed, I think you mean profits. All companies split profits 100-0. It's the secret to capital increase. Money for nothing. Well, money for work someone else has done usually.Posted by zbellino

I have to disagree with you here zbellino. 2 major companies I worked for gave not only profit sharing but bonus salaries to sales over and above my margins. Insurance companies, Defense Contractors, Industrial and Retail Sales all offer profit sharing and bonus stimulus to management if they are a good company wanting to keep employee's and expand, if they didnt no one would work for them.

I have owned my own company for the last 8 years with 16 employees. 30% of my profits go to employees that do an excellent job, without them I would not prosper.

But as far as being in the NFL, the Players do NOT deserve the pay they get. As for saying well they only have a certain amount of time to make that money and put their bodies on the line, everyone does that everyday by getting into your car to drive to work.

What is more important is learning how to structure and save the money you make. ANy business no matter what has a certain life expectancy to make the most money, the NFL Players are no different.

If Im making 2 to 5 Million Dollars a year for 3 to 5 years and wind up broke then its my own fault due to being stupid and ignorant for not getting proper advice of investment stratergy.

You can get Football playing athletes all over the world, you cannot find billionaire owners in each and every college, the point being greed will kill the players and their own stupidity will make sure for not tending to their finances which they are fortunate to have. Like Tom Brady said, they all make too much money as players.

Sorry Stommmper, the Rookie salary cap and the 18 game season are secondary issues. If they were the only issues then a deal would probably get done tomorrow. The real issue is that the owners want the players to give back 1 billion dollars in revenue. Quick overview: the NFL earns $9 billion. 1 billions goes to the owners straight off the top. That money is supposedly used for operating expenses; stadium upkeep, litigation, etc... The remaining 8 billion is split 60 / 40, players getting 60%, owners getting the other 40%. That means the players get 4.8 billion while the owners get 3.2 billion plus the 1 billion off the top, or 4.2 billion. Basically, the owners want 2 billion of the top for operating expenses. Posted by ZachRudy

I understand what you are saying but in my opinion I dont blame the owners, but it has come to this due to their own foolishness. Im an ex union guy and I think the players are insane. You dont go around making anywhere from 1 million to 15 million a year and worry that your boss is making too much more than you. They should concentrate on how not to live beyond their means and proper money management.

If I were the owners I would shut the NFL down and not bring it back until it was totally restructured. Again this is the owners fault for paying to much and creating this mess. No player is worth 5 million a year let alone 15 million. Tom Brady is a prime example telling it like it is that the players make too much money.

Everyone cries about the poor players, try being an owner for a week and see what headaches come up compared to missing a tackle.

Between Baseball and Basketball, they almost ruined sports in this country to watch, football is very enjoyable to watch as a fan, but to sit and hear how the poor players only making 3.5 billion in shared pay, espically when this country is in the condition it is is, it's shamefull

Nobody "deserves" the pay they get. Pay is set, more or less, by the market--i.e., by supply and demand. The reason the players make so much is there's a large demand for guys who can play NFL calibre football and a very short supply. It's that simple. Get over the "deserve" concept and any moral arguments about who takes more risks or who works harder or or anything like that. They have nothing to do with how pay is set. Supply and demand (and to some degree negotiating strength) are all that determine pay. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.

As far as who's more essential to football being a success--owners or players--that's a purely subjective call, generally based on one's own biases. In reality, the sport doesn't exist without either of the two groups. Both are essential. Most of the players couldn't run teams and most of the owners couldn't play a snap on the NFL fields they own. More than that, both groups include a large number of highly accomplished people who have had to work very hard to get where they are today. That's true of both players and owners. And in both groups there are a few guys who were helped by a lot of luck too. I don't think you can look at these two groups and make generalizations about the individuals within them or make blanket statements that one group is better or worse than the other. They are a lot of different individuals--most of whom are quite accomplished in their own chosen profession, some of whom are admirable people who got where they are for all the right reasons and some of whom are donkey's backsides who got there despite being jerks (or maybe because they are jerks, since being an aggressive SOB can sometimes be very profitable).

But when it comes to who gets paid more or less, it's not about who's good or bad, anyway. It's about supply and demand and to some degree negotiating power.

I' Financially speaking and IMO the unions are way out of control and ruining this country.Posted by Sam-Adams

Only 6.9% of private sector workers are in unions, Sam. The other 93.1% are non-unionized. The idea that unions are sending private sector jobs overseas is laughable. Jobs are going overseas because executives making tens of millions of dollars a year and Wall Street investors know that Chinese and Indian labor is a lot cheaper than American labor, unionized or not.

The owners have every right to say the $1B set aside for operating costs is inadequate. Considering the costs of things nowadays, it's not a great leap to imagine the NFL's operating costs exceeding $1B.

They can say what they want, but in reality, the numbers given by independent analysts show it is more than the cost of operating. NFL's financials are really good. Moreover, the NFL is almost zero risk. Revenue sharing, publicly funded, bonded, and backed stadiums, and perpetual demand forthe players that people like (this IS the secret to why other leagues have failed btw) ensure that even the worst owners who cannot field a good team still make money. What other business in the world offers the security that you can make dozens of millions of dollars while releasing a terrible product that no one really wants?

If this isn't the case, then the owners should show their books to the mediator (or eventual arbitrator) to prove the case. Until this point in time, they have refused to, so third party sources are the only reliable guide, and all of those indicate that outside of teams that recently indebted themselves to build stadiums, all the NFL teams continued to grow in wealth right through the recession.

And zero of the NFLowners invented the NFL, so I don't understand the idea that it is their ingenuity that made it happen. I think, as I have stated, the Green Bay packers are a prime example. They have had as much success as any team (outside of NE) the last fifteen years, have the smallest market, and no ownership structure. They are a cooperative, essentially. Or rather, like the modern Credit Union, a for profit cooperative device.

If the owners are so essential, if they generate the product on any level, then wouldn't it seem paradoxical that an ownerless team could be better marketted, and more successful on the feild than 31 owned teams.

Now reverse that ... tell me how a football team with zero players would perform against the field?

It really encapsulates what is going on here, although he also leaves out the fact that many of these teams specifically mortaged their already paid for fields to generate liquidity to handle their seld imposed lockout.

Again, as I have stated elsewhere, if the NFL is bent on locking out, I sincerely hope the players just move on this time, and open a coopoerative player run league. An entire league of Green Bay Packers. Even in the short term, it would bring football of the highest talent level, and in the long term (should it be necessary) it could cut the very uneccessary ownership out of the equation making the financials of the NFL even more lucrative for the people that actually make it work.

Now.......the union sees how much money is being made and wants more of it? Did the union help Mr. Kraft when they built the stadium? Did they say we'll give you a cut rate on labor and materials to get you going but don't forget us? Yeah right!

Gross missassessment Sam. But this was already explained in another thread, did you forget?

The players didn't do anything. This is a lockout. The owners are shutting things down. Furthermore, Kraft took out public bonds to build Gillette, a loan from the NFL, and sold the naming rights to Gillette to cover the cost in the short. The rest, the actual people that show up, are guaranteed by the players, managers, etc.

And Kraft hasn't risked a red cent. If the Patriots were 2-14 every year since Gillette was built he would still have paid for it because of NFL revenue sharing structure.

Zero, zero risk.

Owning an NFL team is like playing blackjack on house money, knowing that you can only win or push, but never lose. This isn't a small business owner who mortgaged his home to get his startup working. The Pats name was purchased for $172 million, and is now worth ten times that, well over a billion, so please don't tell me the financials are broken for Kraft. And even a miserable team that hasn't won a single game like the Lions, has over that span, seen their value increase 8 times to nearly a billion, and that figure will be greater once their stadium is paid for and it becomes a valuable assett instead of a liability, which shouldn't be very long even though they are a terrible team with an awful owner.

Of course the union helped Mr. Kraft. They are paying for his stadium. Again read the link I just posted.

Or, do you think people would show up to watch the Kraft family play flag football and have a picnic at midfield?

Well, every single american with a billion dollars in the bank, at least, can buy a football team.

Did the union help Mr. Kraft when they built the stadium?

Posted by Sam-Adams

The union existed long before Kraft made his investment--and his investment would have been a heck of a lot more risky if the talent level and popularity of the game hadn't reached the heights it had when Kraft bought the team. If NFL teams didn't pay as well as they did, it's questionable whether the game would be as profitable for owners as it is. Let's face it, people watch the game because it's so good and to a large degree that's because the players are so good and that, in turn, is due in large part to the huge investment teams are making to acquire and develop talent. We have football here in Canada and it's hard to fill the stands--because the talent level isn't nearly as good as the NFL's talent level. It's a lot easier to sell out Bills games when they play in Toronto than Argos games. When the product is player talent, making a strong investment in that product helps build a profitable business. Going cheap and hiring any old guy out of college isn't going to bring in billions in revenue from the public.

Bob Kraft did take some risk in buying the Patriots--but Kraft isn't taking crazy risks with his money. A good business man like Kraft takes calculated risks, not wild ones. The Pats were an underperforming business in one of the best and largest sports markets in the world. Bob Kraft had the money and the interest--and he saw the opportunity. That's great for him and for us as fans. I have no problem with him making a lot of money. But that doesn't mean the players don't have a right to demand money too. Without them the NFL is just as impossible as a business as it is without owners. Even Bob Kraft knows that. That's why he thinks it's a worthwhile investment to pay Tom Brady $78 million dollars for five years of work. Tom Brady helps pack the stadium, sell millions of dollars worth of advertisements and millions more in branded products, and helps secure billion-dollar TV deals. All in all, it's a pretty good investment--for Tom and for Bob. They need each other. All we're talking about now is how the 9 or 10 billion dollars gets split between the two. Hopefully the mediator can work out an arrangement that all are happy with. There's too much money to be made for either side to dig in its heels too deep.